Science: On second thought, no, secondhand smoke won’t kill you

posted at 9:21 pm on December 19, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

Now it can be told. Now that smoking has been banned everywhere but the dryer vent at your apartment based on the notion that secondhand smoke kills everyone around you, The Journal of the National Cancer Institute can tell us this via Jacob Sullum:

The article describes a large prospective study that “confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.” The study tracked more than 76,000 women, 901 of whom eventually developed lung cancer. Although “the incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers,” says the JNCI article, there was no statistically significant association between reported exposure to secondhand smoke and subsequent development of lung cancer. “We don’t want people to conclude that passive smoking has no effect on lung cancer,” says one of the researchers, Stanford oncologist Heather Wakelee. “We think the message is, this analysis doesn’t tell us what the risk is, or even if there is a risk.”

While hardly the last word on the subject, the study has advantages over most of the research commonly cited as evidence that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. “To our knowledge,” the authors say, “this is the first study to examine both active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in a complete prospective cohort of US women.” The prospective design avoids a weaknes of studies that start with lung cancer cases and “match” them to controls. “Many studies that showed the strongest links between secondhand smoke and lung cancer were case-control studies, which can suffer from recall bias,” notes the JNCI article, since “people who develop a disease that might be related to passive smoking are more likely to recall being exposed to passive smoking.”

Yet another instance where the Left is more than happy to make up science as long as they can use the made-up science to take away people’s freedoms. Sullum finds the indictment of the scientist/public health industrial complex in the article:

Jyoti Patel, MD, of Northwestern University School of Medicine said the findings were not new….

“Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,” said Patel. “The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm.”

In other words, although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will tell you that “secondhand smoke causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year,” scientists have long understood that the actual number might be closer to zero.

But it’s not like it matters to the statists. They’re happy to take away freedoms even when there is no smoke:

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – The New York City Council approved legislation Thursday to ban the use of electronic cigarettes from indoor public spaces where smoking is already prohibited.

E-cigarettes have been endorsed by celebrities, marketed in multiple flavors and are soaring in popularity.

From made-up danger to not even the pretense of danger. Beware the water vapor.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

NO CRAP.

THeres never been a death linked to breathing smoke from tobacco.

TX-96 on December 19, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Sarah standing strong with the Duck
MKH with bashir?

renalin on December 19, 2013 at 9:25 PM

This isn’t new news for those of us who don’t politicize science. I’ve known for years there never was an established link between secondhand smoke and any ill effects.

NotCoach on December 19, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Facts … even harder for liberals to understand than MATH.

PolAgnostic on December 19, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Will these people make up their minds?! Multi-vitamins or not? Second hand smoke or not? Who knows, “they” may tell us Obamacare or AGW are shams too. (We’ll have to wait a while for that admission, but it’ll come.)

conservative pilgrim on December 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM

I thought we figured this one out back in the early 90s.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 9:30 PM

This isn’t new news for those of us who don’t politicize science. I’ve known for years there never was an established link between secondhand smoke and any ill effects.

NotCoach on December 19, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Actually, the WHO figured this out well over a decade ago and buried the story.

Lanceman on December 19, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Big problem with this article headline. “Not linked to cancer” is not the same as “won’t kill you.”

Enlarged heart, coronary artery disease, emphysema – all fatal, and all not lung cancer. All positively linked to tobacco smoke.

KingGold on December 19, 2013 at 9:31 PM

I thought we figured this one out back in the early 90s.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Proving my points on multiple post. You smug know it all child.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:32 PM

This kind of thing can’t continue. It would leave only Protestant Christian Fundamentalists, Catholics, and Southern People to sneer at. We have to lie about everything else — Men/Women, effeminate gay-guy has dramatic moment, that’s the blackest/whitest/most Mexican thing I’ve ever seen — etc. — all off the table. With no pressure valve, we’ll explode.

We need filthy, nasty, despicable smokers killing children through third-hand smoke. We run across them more frequently. Smokers are America’s squeeze ball.

Axe on December 19, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Enlarged heart, coronary artery disease, emphysema – all fatal, and all not lung cancer. All positively linked to tobacco smoke.

KingGold on December 19, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Link ?

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:35 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – The New York City Council approved legislation Thursday to ban the use of electronic cigarettes from indoor public spaces where smoking is already prohibited.

Good deal, eat crap NYC. You deserve it in spades.

arnold ziffel on December 19, 2013 at 9:36 PM

On second thought, no, secondhand smoke won’t kill you

I don’t care. I like the limits on smoking because I hate how I end up reeking of cigarettes when I’ve been around people smoking.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2013 at 9:39 PM

OT: Robertson Family Releases Statement on A&E Decision to Suspend Phil Robertson

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word.

While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.

We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty.

Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.

Robertson Family

kcewa on December 19, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Well, the NSA block above HA is trying to sell me nicotine gum.
Quit years ago.

AllahsNippleHair on December 19, 2013 at 9:44 PM

From made-up danger to not even the pretense of danger. Beware the water vapor.

Fascist Moonbats…

“Today the New York City Council approved an ordinance that prohibits the use of e-cigarettes in all the places where smoking is prohibited, which is pretty much everywhere except private residences and some outdoor locations (not parks, though!). The ban takes effect in four months, although business owners will have another six months to post “No Vaping” signs.

Why did the city council decide to treat vaping like smoking? Not because e-cigarettes, which contain no tobacco and produce no smoke, pose a hazard to bystanders, which is the usual excuse for smoking bans, but because they look too much like regular cigarettes…”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/12/19/nyc-council-bans-public-vaping-because-it-looks-too-much-like-smoking/

workingclass artist on December 19, 2013 at 9:47 PM

kcewa on December 19, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Sounds to me like A&E just screwed themselves by kowtowing to the gay lobby. Oh well, it’s not as if they needed the ad revenue anyway.

I wonder what network will pick them up?

KingGold on December 19, 2013 at 9:47 PM

I wonder what network will pick them up?

KingGold on December 19, 2013 at 9:47 PM

A&E?

/

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:49 PM

I wonder what network will pick them up?

KingGold on December 19, 2013 at 9:47 PM

I hope A&E apologizes. I don’t expect it though

kcewa on December 19, 2013 at 9:51 PM

A&E/Disney et al. are the gay lobby. At least, the suits & power-players.

Axe on December 19, 2013 at 9:51 PM

I never believed that secondhand smoke caused cancer, emphysema or anything else for that matter. I did believe that I couldn’t stand the pompous jacka$$e$ who turned into tobacco Nazis any time they saw a plume of smoke within 10 miles of them. Their activism has resulted in ridiculous prohibitions. I mean, come on, in some towns you can’t smoke in your OWN HOUSE! I won’t go through the other stupid examples. Everyone knows them.

Having said that, I don’t want to be around smoke. I imbibed for almost 30 years and I have the missing kidney to prove it. I do believe that smoking had something to do with my kidney cancer. The fifth of scotch I knocked back along with it probably had something to do with it too, but that’s for another day, another story.

Lastly, I’ve seen posts in which some of my fellow HotAirians are asking for evidence when someone says that smoking leads to heart disease, emphysema, etc.

Well, my hard evidence is my father who smoke for maybe 50, maybe 60 years. And for the last 10 years of his life he couldn’t catch his breath. He basically suffocated for 10 years until he finally gave up and died. He just decided that he had had enough and died two days later. He was stupid to smoke (I was stupid to smoke), but he didn’t deserve to die like that, and smoking dam sure did it to him.

That’s all the evidence I need.

NavyMustang on December 19, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Can I piss in people’s faces now? That doesn’t cause cancer either and restricting it tramples on muh freedumbs.

Darth Executor on December 19, 2013 at 9:52 PM

From made-up danger to not even the pretense of danger. Beware the water vapor.

Water vapor is a “greenhouse gas” – i.e. one of the most dangerous pollutants ever known to Man. They are stopping the e-cigs to fight global warming, for which the science is settled. Global warming causes lung cancer, BTW, so it’s all come full totalitarian circle.

It is really impossible for any decent person to live with leftists. Once leftists gain even a little control, it’s all over. And it is, all over.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 19, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Can I piss in people’s faces now? That doesn’t cause cancer either and restricting it tramples on muh freedumbs.

Darth Executor on December 19, 2013 at 9:52 PM

From the alchemist school of logic.

Fail.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Water vapor is a “greenhouse gas” – i.e. one of the most dangerous pollutants ever known to Man. They are stopping the e-cigs to fight global warming, for which the science is settled. Global warming causes lung cancer, BTW, so it’s all come full totalitarian circle.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 19, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Wow. That was impressive. :)

Axe on December 19, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Lastly, I’ve seen posts in which some of my fellow HotAirians are asking for evidence when someone says that smoking leads to heart disease, emphysema, etc.

Well, my hard evidence is my father who smoke for maybe 50, maybe 60 years. And for the last 10 years of his life he couldn’t catch his breath. He basically suffocated for 10 years until he finally gave up and died. He just decided that he had had enough and died two days later. He was stupid to smoke (I was stupid to smoke), but he didn’t deserve to die like that, and smoking dam sure did it to him.

That’s all the evidence I need.

NavyMustang on December 19, 2013 at 9:52 PM

That’s classic anecdotal evidence but this thread is not about first hand smoking and my question about linking second hand smoke to those other diseases. I see the charities sites using some claims to raise money but I will have to go back and look further.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:58 PM

kcewa on December 19, 2013 at 9:41 PM

OT Shocker. A&E loses their biggest show because this family (unlike the Kardashians) sticks together.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2013 at 10:00 PM

You WILL do as you are told by your ‘betters’. After all, they only have YOUR best interests at heart!

And stay away from sugar!

And salt!

And meats!

And direct sunshine!

Stay in your home until WE plan your day for you. Where to go. What to buy. What to say.

It’s for the children!

GarandFan on December 19, 2013 at 10:07 PM

MKH, I don’t want to dwell on cigarettes, and I’m bored with nothing to do, so — post something else.

*makes whip noise*

. . . Something not gay.

Axe on December 19, 2013 at 10:10 PM

This might seem weird, but I kind of liked the smell of cigarettes in restaurants (before smoking indoors here was banned). I have never smoked anything myself, but I used to find the cigarette smell a bit homey. I miss it.

bluegill on December 19, 2013 at 10:11 PM

The World Health Organization concluded the same about second-hand smoke, years ago. It’s just another example of the left trying to guilt people into acting the way they want them to, see Global Warming, without scientific or other evidence of a real problem. It’s also the “do as we say not as we do” thing, to wit, the continued prevalence of smoking in movies and, God forbid, abject violence, etc.

TXUS on December 19, 2013 at 10:23 PM

When I was a teenager I smoked a lot. Then I kind of forgot about it because I had other things on my mind. Today I bum a cigarette off of people once in a while when I’m drinking. If somebody lights up when I’m around, I couldn’t care less. This whole ‘second hand smoke’ thing is nonsense.

WhatSlushfund on December 19, 2013 at 10:25 PM

but he didn’t deserve to die like that,

obamacare death panels are better?

newrouter on December 19, 2013 at 10:27 PM

You knew that BS had to go up in smoke. In order for there to be a causal relationship, it would have meant that EVERY primary smoker would have been dead by age 60 from Lung cancer.

So all this boils down to, was some whinny liberals getting there way.

Surprise there.

WryTrvllr on December 19, 2013 at 10:27 PM

This might seem weird, but I kind of liked the smell of cigarettes in restaurants

bluegill on December 19, 2013 at 10:11 PM

It’s not weird. Tobacco is a delicacy.

WhatSlushfund on December 19, 2013 at 10:28 PM

OT:

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word.

While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.

We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty.

Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.

Robertson Family

Welcome, A&E, to your future and how real people deal with bullshit. You have been pwned. Big time.

TXUS on December 19, 2013 at 10:28 PM

All positively linked to tobacco smoke.

KingGold on December 19, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Second-hand tobacco smoke?

Solaratov on December 19, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Science: On second thought, no, secondhand smoke won’t kill you

Doesn’t matter-the “facts” are firmly in the PC echo chamber.

The backlash against cigarettes seemed to have started when the Baby Boomer generation started to reach ascendency in the ’70s. The “Greatest Generation” found smoking to be pretty normal and acceptable, and the hippies seemed to reject everything their parents liked or accepted out of hand and were into whatever their parents found unacceptable.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM

You know what is incredibly deadly to humanity?

Marxism…including progressivism and socialism. Variants of the Marxist cult have resulted in more than 100 million innocents being murdered in the last century. Marxists and progressives are evil incarnate! They oppose tobacco, gun rights, drugs, free speech, Christianity, etc., because they want to control your life and death. They tend to lean on the death side if you are libertarian or Christian.

Ceteris Paribus on December 19, 2013 at 11:24 PM

My skin crawls when i see evidence of Botox. . .nancy pelositis . . .get her out of the public eye! Quickly .. .aaaggghhhh!!!

countmein on December 19, 2013 at 11:33 PM

honestly, i quit a couple years back. I still want it removed from my medical record that i’m an ex-smoker. It isn’t relevant anymore but with obamacare .. it will be a factor in the knee replacement authorization. even in 10 or 15 years.

countmein on December 19, 2013 at 11:36 PM

I know a soldier who had crushed vertebra from an accident in Iraq. The hatch to the tank he was in wasn’t locked/blocked correctly and it slammed down on his lower back. He was shipped stateside and had to wait for over 6 months until he quit smoking to get his back worked on. Unbelievable.

countmein on December 19, 2013 at 11:38 PM

the government reminds me of Rod Sterling when it comes to control . ..

“we control the vertical, we control the horizontal” …

idiots wont be happy until they force us into the “perfect” mold. Almost sounds like someone else that was looking for the perfect race . ..now who was that again? some war .. 1930′s .. .

countmein on December 19, 2013 at 11:42 PM

I’ve often wondered how many death certificates list second hand smoke as the cause of death.

tj4osu on December 19, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Second-hand tobacco smoke?

Solaratov on December 19, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Don’t forget that ALL these studies are based out of metropolitan research institutions

WryTrvllr on December 19, 2013 at 11:52 PM

I remember when the lame duck libs banned it in my county for a few months until the conservatives restored the freedom of business owners to choose. The no-smoke lobby bussed in people from other states to support them. I enjoy being able to choose whether I want to be around smokers or not.

HellCat on December 19, 2013 at 11:55 PM

From the alchemist school of logic.

Fail.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Taking a leak is more necessary to life than breast feeding

WryTrvllr on December 19, 2013 at 11:56 PM

sorry. just woke up. didn’t realize darth was being a libdumbas$

WryTrvllr on December 19, 2013 at 11:57 PM

NavyMustang on December 19, 2013 at 9:52 PM

My dad used to eat no processed meat, avoided anything resembling a chemical, and looked like an astronaut at the beach.

Died of an ocular melanoma.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 12:00 AM

It’s been known for at least a decade that the secondhand smoke claims was just more junk science to prop-up a political agenda.

This is the way the LEFT gets things done, it’s how they got DDT banned. It’s how they suck up billions of tax dollars every year with the man-made Global Warming scam.

There have been many fraudulent ‘science’ claims that have been cooked up to serve the political LEFT. This is criminal and these people that cook up these ‘studies’ need to go to jail.

Axion on December 20, 2013 at 12:27 AM

It’s not weird. Tobacco is a delicacy.

WhatSlushfund on December 19, 2013 at 10:28 PM

My mom smoked three packs a day. When I was young, I would come home from kindergarten and there would be a layer of smoke floating about a foot above my head.

As I grew up, that layer of smoke got closer and closer and then suddenly I was in it, and felt like my lungs had been enclosed in hot iron bands. I learned what it was like to be a smoker that day, and for many days thereafter until I grew above the layer of smoke.

It was terrible living in the home of a smoker. My mom tried to quit but couldn’t, because she didn’t have the willpower to overcome the nicotine addiction. Eventually, she got emphysema, and needed to go on oxygen, but she’d shut off the oxygen (thankfully) and still smoke her packs.

She died of emphysema less than an hour after her last cigarette.

Now, I do know that second hand smoke can be felt by the person breathing it, and that it has physiological effects. I don’t know what it did to my health, but I was always prone to lung ailments — asthma and such — until I went to college; then those miraculously cleared up. I don’t know what the possible increase in probability of contracting cancer is, but I’m betting it’s far lower than direct smoke but not inconsequential. After all, the main ingredient in tobacco which causes cancer is Polonium 210, which tobacco plants efficiently take up in relatively large quantities from the fertilizer used in the tobacco fields.

Some of these radiation particles hang around for decades and decades,” Spangler said. “You’re emitting radiation when you smoke, and your family, your dog, your cat are all inhaling that radiation. How many smokers want to expose their child to radiation?”

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/tobacco-companies-hid-evidence-radiation-cigarettes-decades/story?id=14635963&page=2

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2013 at 12:37 AM

This has actually been known to every statistician and reputable economist since the 80′s. (Economists spend a great deal of time learning stats) That is because when you reduce the stats to the levels required to ‘deduce’ cancer, they are below the toxicity levels of any single or combined ingredients of cigarette smoke.

pat on December 20, 2013 at 12:47 AM

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2013 at 12:37 AM

Pajama boy?

WhatSlushfund on December 20, 2013 at 12:52 AM

Some of these radiation particles hang around for decades and decades,” Spangler said. “You’re emitting radiation when you smoke, and your family, your dog, your cat are all inhaling that radiation. How many smokers want to expose their child to radiation?”

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2013 at 12:37 AM

Miniscule compared to the radiation you get travelling to Europe or sleeping next to your c14 emitting wife.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 1:05 AM

How many smokers want to expose their child to radiation?”

All the ones who rush to the hospital for a chest x-ray everytime their kid has the slightest fever, or want a head CT after every fall.

Free healthcare for all!!!!

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 1:54 AM

Someone needs to casually give the Statists a heads up on the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide and then sit back and see what happens. ^_^

Scopper on December 20, 2013 at 2:35 AM

Good grief! Next they’ll try to tell us that Global Warming/Climate Change is not caused by humans and their activities. LOL.

/s

jix on December 20, 2013 at 3:31 AM

Well we weren’t responsible for the Sahara, so why not?

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 3:51 AM

‘Settled Science’.

Ah, that magical invention of the Lefties that provides the means for them to follow their emotions to any conclusion they want… Depending on how they feel at the moment.

socalcon on December 20, 2013 at 6:24 AM

There have been multiple studies that show the number of heart attacks was reduced significantly immediately after public smoking bans went into effect.

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 7:04 AM

Ex-smoker here. No duh, but it does stink and it makes everything it touches stink. Smokers don’t know it because they reek of it themselves. So I’m happy to have smokers relegated to outdoors and several feet away from the entrances.

Kafir on December 20, 2013 at 7:06 AM

Ah, even back then, the powers that be were using the political to control our behavior with the healthcare weapons. Next we may well see a grant based study or two that prove it was really global climate change that caused all that cancer. Science is such a credible weapon for the left, as it’s so easily distorted and abused (like the economy)

Don L on December 20, 2013 at 7:14 AM

But it’s not like it matters to the statists. They’re happy to take away freedoms even when there is no smoke:

Hundreds of years ago the village clergy and church ladies tried to tell everyone how they must live, what they could and could not do, what they could say and not say, and so on and so forth. This was enforced in various ways, including threats of hell, social ostracization, shunning, and public punishment in the town square.

In modern America socialists and busy body libs are doing the same thing. They are using the power of government, the law, the public schools, the media, and Political Correctness to indoctrinate people and impose their views about how people should behave, what they should and should not do, what they should and should not say, etc. In the extreme personal freedom is tossed aside to condemn and ban anything that makes some people even mildly uncomfortable, a subjective “feeling”. They use six degrees of separation arguments to claim, basically, that everything that people do and say affects other people in some way, and/or imposes a “cost to society”, and so society — or “The Community” — can justifiably impose its will on everyone.

Party members in the Soviet Union made the same arguments. Socialists and control-freak statists always use this argument when attempting to impose government control over the economy and individual behavior, almost always restricting personal freedom, in the interest of advancing The Cause.

farsighted on December 20, 2013 at 7:29 AM

Smoking Bans Prevent Heart Attacks

Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS

From the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology and The Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Baltimore, Md.

In this issue of Circulation, Bartecchi and colleagues1 describe a reduction in hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction in Pueblo, Colo, after the implementation of a city-wide smoking ordinance. The ordinance, which was strictly enforced, prohibited smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants, and in all buildings open to the public. The findings in Pueblo confirm a similar assessment of the consequences of a public smoking ban in Helena, Mont, which was the first such assessment reported.2 In the Montana study, the law was in force for 6 months before a challenge led to a court order suspending it. Admissions for acute myocardial infarction declined by 40% during the 6 months of the ban and then rose after it was lifted.

Article p 1490

Replication is critical in inferring causality.3 The drop in hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction after the ban in Pueblo provides clear confirmation of the results in Helena. The new report1 has several strengths. The number of hospitalizations (855) is large, so the impact of the ban can be precisely estimated; the statistical analysis indicates that the findings are highly unlikely to have arisen by chance. The design incorporated 2 comparison populations: residents of Pueblo County outside of the city of Pueblo and residents of El Paso County, which includes Colorado Springs. By including these comparison populations, Bartecchi et al1 were able to account for temporal trends of a decline in hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction that might have mistakenly been attributed to the ordinance. Their final regression model estimated a decline of approximately 30% in the hospitalization rate after the ordinance; there was no decline in El Paso County. This beneficial effect is of sufficient magnitude to be readily visible in their Figure 3, which plots the raw data.1

How might a smoking ban sharply reduce the rate of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction? The implementation of an enforced smoking ordinance would be followed by an immediate reduction in exposure to secondhand smoke and also by a drop in the cigarette consumption of active smokers.4 Each of these consequences would be expected to the reduce risk for acute myocardial infarction.

Active and passive smoking are well-documented causes of morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease, and smoking cessation leads to relatively rapid reversal of some of the excess risk associated with active smoking.3,5,6 Within a year after successful cessation, the smoking-associated risk for coronary heart disease events drops by about 50%. Little research has been carried out to determine the decline of risk for coronary heart disease events after a reduction in exposure to secondhand smoke. However, adverse effects of secondhand smoke exposure on the clotting profile and endothelial cell function might quickly reverse.6

From Circulation (lead journal for the American Heart Association)

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 7:31 AM

Cardiovascular

Smoking Bans Cut MI Rate

Published: Oct 29, 2012

By Crystal Phend , Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today

Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco and Dorothy Caputo, MA, BSN, RN, Nurse Planner

Indoor smoking bans substantially cut heart attack rates in communities and may have an impact on sudden cardiac death as well, a study has found.
Note that other than the expected decline in smoking prevalence from making it less convenient, cardiovascular risk factors remained largely stable in the population there, supporting an effect of the bans themselves.

Indoor smoking bans substantially cut heart attack rates in communities and may have an impact on sudden cardiac death as well, a population-based study showed.

Myocardial infarction (MI) incidence dropped 33% after implementation of ordinances banning smoking in restaurants and the workplace, Richard D. Hurt, MD, of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues found.

Sudden cardiac death incidence declined by 17% in Olmsted County — where Mayo Clinic is located — with the laws, though not statistically significant at P=0.13 with the relatively low number of events, the group reported online in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

From MedPAge Today

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 7:36 AM

And the purpose for this now useless proclamation…….?
Hmmmmm…….think,,,,think,,,,think…….could it be a set up for……..
.
LEGALIZING MARIJUANA.
.
You can’t continue to demonize tobacco if you want to mainstream pot.
Smoking cigarettes bad…smoking Pot good? Wait a minute.
.
Joe Camel will smoke pot…..wait for it.
.
There is no poll or no study without a purpose. Stop getting played.

FlaMurph on December 20, 2013 at 7:37 AM

While this health effect is well established, it has not been clear if banning smoking could help reduce heart attacks, he says.

“We know that if you expose somebody, it’s bad,” says Meyers. “How about if you ban the exposure — will that make any difference? So that end of the logic had to be looked at, and now we can say, absolutely.”

With more time, research may also show that bans could lower rates of other smoking-related health problems, such as lung cancer, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a lung condition that includes emphysema and is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States.

“This is only the short-term result; lung cancer takes a lot longer to show up,” says Dr. Steven A. Schroeder, the director of the Smoking Cessation Leadership Center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“And there will be a decrease in strokes; there’s already literature that shows that,” says Schroeder, who wrote an editorial accompanying Meyers’s study. Health.com: Tricks to lower blood pressure

Double-digit declines

In the first study, James Lightwood, Ph.D., and Stanton Glantz, Ph.D., both of the University of California, San Francisco, analyzed data from 13 studies conducted in five countries. They found at least a 15 percent decline in heart-attack hospitalizations in the first year after smoke-free legislation was passed, and 36 percent after three years. The National Cancer Institute funded the study.

In the second study, Meyers and his colleagues analyzed data from 10 studies in 11 regions in the U.S. (including Montana, New York, Ohio, and Indiana), Canada, and Europe. The results were similar to those in Lightwood and Glantz’s study. (Both research teams looked at similar data.)

For example, in the 18 months after smoking was banned in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and other businesses in Pueblo, Colorado, there was a 27 percent decline in heart attacks — down from 257 to 187 cases per 100,000 people per year. There was no drop in the surrounding communities. Health.com: 5 ways to keep pollution from harming your heart

Overall, women, nonsmokers, and people under age 60 seem to benefit the most in regard to heart-attack-risk reduction, Meyers says. Many of those affected are employees in places where smoking is still allowed, he says.

From CNN.
I originally posted the links but that post disappeared.

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 7:38 AM

Secondhand Smoke, Asthma Link Remains

Published: Aug 10, 2013 | Updated: Aug 12, 2013

By Cole Petrochko , Staff Writer, MedPage Today

Reviewed by F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE; Instructor of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Dorothy Caputo, MA, BSN, RN, Nurse Planner

Note that this analysis of NHANES data demonstrated that children with asthma were more likely to be exposed to secondhhand smoke than those without asthma.
Although the study design can not confirm causality, the weight of evidence suggests a pathologic link between secondhhand smoke and respiratory illness in children.

Children with asthma were more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke than those without the disease, researchers found.

From 1999 to 2010, the overall rate of exposure to secondhand smoke among children without asthma declined from 57.3% to 44.2%, but the exposure rate remained nearly constant over the same time period for children with asthma, only declining from 57.9% to 54%, according to Kenneth Quinto, MD, of the National Center for Health Statistics in Hyattsville, Md, and colleagues.

And the latest statistics, from 2007 to 2010, show that children with asthma who were female, Mexican-American, from families with income below 350% of the federal poverty line, and ages 6 to 11 had greater exposure to environmental tobacco smoke than those without asthma, they wrote in a National Center for Health Statistics data brief.

Past research has tied secondhand smoke exposure to exacerbated asthma symptoms in children and increased risk of mental illness in healthy adults. Other research has also tied neonatal smoke exposure from smoking mothers to hearing loss and behavior problems in the child.

Quinto and co-authors also cautioned that secondhand smoke exposure in all children was associated with risks of middle ear infection, bronchitis, pneumonia, coughing and wheezing, worse lung function, and the development of asthma. They added that in 2007 to 2010, one in 10 children had asthma.

The authors gathered data from the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) from 1999 to 2010 to measure trends in environmental tobacco smoke exposure in children with and without asthma, and to stratify rates of exposure by sex, race, income, and age group. Income was broken down by earnings 350% or greater than the poverty line, 185% to less than 350% of the poverty line, and less than 185% of the poverty line.

Exposure to secondhand smoke was classified as serum cotinine levels between 0.05 ng/mL and 10 ng/mL in children who didn’t smoke themselves. Children were considered smokers if they were 12 to 19 years old and answered “yes” when asked if they had used tobacco in the 5 days prior to the survey or if their serum cotinine levels were greater than 10 ng/mL. “Serum cotinine is a breakdown product of nicotine,” the authors noted.

Children were considered to have asthma if a parent affirmed on the survey that a healthcare professional had diagnosed them with asthma and if they still had asthma.

By age group, there was no significant difference in secondhand smoke exposure for children with and without asthma ages 3 to 5 and 12 to 19 in the 2007 to 2010 data. However, children ages 6 to 11 with asthma were exposed to secondhand smoke significantly more often than those without asthma in that time (58.8% versus 44.7%, P<0.05).

In families with household incomes lower than 350% of the poverty line, children with asthma were significantly more likely to be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke than those without asthma (P<0.05 for both groups). There was no significant difference in smoke exposure in families earning 350% or more above the poverty line.

Mexican-American children with asthma were significantly more likely than those without asthma to have been exposed to secondhand smoke (38.2% versus 27.4%, P<0.05).

Primary source: NCHS Data Brief

Source reference: Quinto KB, et al "Environmental tobacco smoke exposure in children aged 3-19 years with and without asthma in the United States, 1999-2010" NCHS Data Brief 2013.

It’s for the children!

GarandFan on December 19, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Why, yes, it is.

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 8:03 AM

Cardiovascular

Smoking Bans Cut MI Rate

Published: Oct 29, 2012

By Crystal Phend , Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today

Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco and Dorothy Caputo, MA, BSN, RN, Nurse Planner

Indoor smoking bans substantially cut heart attack rates in communities and may have an impact on sudden cardiac death as well, a study has found.
Note that other than the expected decline in smoking prevalence from making it less convenient, cardiovascular risk factors remained largely stable in the population there, supporting an effect of the bans themselves.

Indoor smoking bans substantially cut heart attack rates in communities and may have an impact on sudden cardiac death as well, a population-based study showed.

Myocardial infarction (MI) incidence dropped 33% after implementation of ordinances banning smoking in restaurants and the workplace, Richard D. Hurt, MD, of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues found.

Sudden cardiac death incidence declined by 17% in Olmsted County — where Mayo Clinic is located — with the laws, though not statistically significant at P=0.13 with the relatively low number of events, the group reported online in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

From MedPAge Today

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 7:36 AM

well since so many heart attacks occur shoveling snow, than global warming is a good thing too.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 8:06 AM

So, talking points, if you drop the rates of MI in these (what 22-70 year olds?????) then you are increasing their chances of dying of……..what?

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 8:11 AM

That’s right. why would you wish that on anyone.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 8:13 AM

In fact , TP, the highest incidence of heart attacks occurs in the morning. Maybe we should all stay home from work too.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 8:16 AM

Myocardial infarction (MI) incidence dropped 33% after implementation of ordinances banning smoking in restaurants and the workplace, Richard D. Hurt, MD, of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues found.

It would be fascinating to see if this study factored out the little old liberal ladies who have an anxiety attack when they smell cigarette smoke.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 8:26 AM

“Statistical studies” are fraught with bias and are often filled with BS. They are the bane of modern “social science”. They are what socialist social engineers use to justify their meddling.

They can be just as bad when used by the “medical community” to advance questionable agendas.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
— usually attributed to Mark Twain

Correlation is not causation. Even if a statistically significant correlation can be shown. Also, questionable assumptions and methodologies are glossed over. All other possible explanations are discarded in favor of the favored explanation, which is often the result/explanation the “researchers” were looking for in the first place.

Up next, banning of fast food, because it drives everyone’s health insurance costs up. Government and “medical community” defined and imposed weight and exercise laws mandatory guidelines. Oh, and guns in the home are a health hazard. And so on and so forth.

farsighted on December 20, 2013 at 8:27 AM

The articles I provided after th post I had with the links disappeared are just a few of the many community studies that clearly show tha public smoking bans reduce heart attack rates.

They have done studies comparing counties side by side-one with a ban, one without, and in one case a county which had a ban, saw a 40% reduction in heart attacks, reversed the ban and the heart attack rate increased.

It would be difficult to impossible to do something like that with the decades lag in lung cancer.

So, given that there are over a dozen studies showing that if you put in a public smoking ban you’ll cut the local rate of heart attacks, is your position we shouldn’t try to reduce heart attacks?

Is your position all of these studies are rigged? They’re pretty simple. Place passes smoking ban. Number of heart attacks admitted to hospitals in are is counted for the year before the ban and the year after, based on hospital billing data. Numbers are compared for the same years to the next county which did not have a ban and in one case the same place after the ban was repealed. Doctor sees the opportunity for any easy peer reviewed publication and analyzes the data.

Is your position that public health isn’t the government’s business? (just forget the health and welfare clause)

Feel free to come up with another public intervention that cuts heart attack rates 10% in a year ( which is less than they found in any of these studies-it’s more like 25% but I’ll make it easier for you).

I’ll be happy to post more of the studies (I’m a cardiologist so I have access to lots and lots of articles-I didn’t even check pubmed, these were from the first half page on google, not even google scholar). I wouldn’t have posted this much if they hadn’t deleted my original posts which just had the links.

Yeah, it would be terrible if people died of old age.

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 8:46 AM

From made-up danger to not even the pretense of danger. Beware the water vapor.

And don’t forget that nasty pollutant, carbon dioxide: beware the breath.

Barnestormer on December 20, 2013 at 8:53 AM

well since so many heart attacks occur shoveling snow, than global warming is a good thing too.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 8:06 AM

Warmthing isn’t science, it’s religion, practiced by people who don’t understand science, or somehow think it’s a good thing to try to stop evolution.

Global warmthers also seem not to understand math, or the concept that the sun has a lot greater impact on the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere than cow flatulance.

Given that warmthers can’t seem to figure out if the earth is getting warmer or colder because of man and have now settled on climate change, do they seriously think that if there were no humban beings the earth’s temperature would not change?

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 9:14 AM

In fact , TP, the highest incidence of heart attacks occurs in the morning. Maybe we should all stay home from work too.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 8:16 AM

It’s the circadian rhythm. Unless staying home from work eliminates the circadian rhythm, it is difficult to see how this would have an effect.

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 9:15 AM

So, talking points, if you drop the rates of MI in these (what 22-70 year olds?????) then you are increasing their chances of dying of……..what?

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 8:11 AM

The MI studies are usually total hospital admissions for MI, not usually age restricted.

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Great, now I can take the tape off from around her mouth during…well…ya know

jake49 on December 20, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Myocardial infarction (MI) incidence dropped 33% after implementation of ordinances banning smoking in restaurants and the workplace, Richard D. Hurt, MD, of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues found.

It would be fascinating to see if this study factored out the little old liberal ladies who have an anxiety attack when they smell cigarette smoke.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 8:26 AM

The hospital discharge diagnosis of heart attack is based on bloodwork, CPK-MB and troponin, which are not elevated in anxiety attacks.

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Hey, whatever it takes to get the laws passed. Now, there just has to be a rush on passing all of those carbon taxes before our illustrious scientific community has to do the same thing about global warming.

bflat879 on December 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Second hand smoke still makes your clothing and hair stink. I resent it.

thuja on December 20, 2013 at 9:39 AM

I’ve known for years there never was an established link between secondhand smoke and any ill effects.

NotCoach on December 19, 2013 at 9:25 PM

That’s not what this study said – it specifically talks only about lung cancer. There certainly are ill effects from secondhand smoke. What the level and lethality of those effects is, is the question.

Now that we have had our little fun with outlawing everything everywhere, though, maybe we could roll back a bunch of this crap and let folks decide in freedom whether they want to sit in a restaurant or bar with smokers. You’ll get plenty of places that cater to both sorts.

GWB on December 20, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Gee, I remember having this argument here, maybe a year and a half or so ago before, that second hand smoke does not cause lung cancer and all the “conservative” commenters attacked me as some kind of anti science nut case.
Poisons/toxins are all based on dosage. Things required for life are also poisons, when the dose is increased. Even water is a poison that will kill you if consumed in high enough dosage. Oxygen is a poison as well, you cannot breath pure oxygen.

While they claim it increases risk for other ailments…

“Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,”

Even these risks are overblown and the true culprits are left unchallenged.
These are more likely to happen to kids who are overprotected from germs as infants. As our environment is overly cleaned when we are building our immune systems, the immune system does not learn to confront these issues as we grow up and end up facing them as adults.
There was far more smoking in the past, and yet rates of all of these issues were lower than today despite having lower quality health care. It is not smoking that is driving the increases, and if anyone says otherwise, then they are stupid or liars. I consider the misinformed to be stupid. You have to have some degree of intelligence to not fall for junk science.

astonerii on December 20, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Exposure to secondhand smoke has been shown to increase susceptibility to, and to worsen, respiratory infection in adults and children. Probable mechanisms include inflammation of the airways, increased permeability of the protective mucosal layer in the airways, impairment of mucociliary clearance, and reduced immune function.1,2

A 2010 systematic review found that, among children aged one to 19 years, exposure to secondhand smoke doubled the risk of invasive meningococcal disease. Exposed children were also more likely to carry the bacteria responsible for meningococcal disease, N. meningitidis.2 Invasive meningococcal disease is an important cause of illness and death in children and young adults in Australia. Meningococcal disease occurs most commonly in individuals aged under 25, with peaks of incidence in those aged four and under and in young adults aged between 15 and 24.3 In 2009, there were 259 notified cases of meningococcal disease. About 10% of those infected die.3 Research conducted in Australia4,5 has also shown that exposure to secondhand smoke is a risk factor for both children and young adults in contracting invasive meningococcal disease. Persons living with smokers have a greater chance of exposure to meningococci, because smokers are more likely to carry the bacteria. Another possible mechanism is that viral infections are more common in smokers, and a preceding viral infection can act as a cofactor for meningococcal disease.6

Evidence suggests that exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with the development of tuberculosis disease in both children and adults.7,8 More research is needed.

Infections in young children, including otitis media (middle ear disease) and respiratory tract infections, including bronchitis, bronchiolitis and pneumonia, are discussed in Section 4.9.

.000005756 rate of disease. And it is not a direct link.
Probable
Likely
suggests

Great science there.

astonerii on December 20, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Michael Crichton has said this 10 years ago. He wrote a huge article on how the “testing” was conducted (trapping rats in a confined space) and that there’s no science behind it.
Maybe people will start to wake up about the “science” that’s being conducted (like global warming) and come to the conclusion that most “government science” has a predetermined conclusion.

djaymick on December 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Now I understand why my Grandmother, who tended bar during the day in her husband’s tavern, lived into her 90′s!

polarglen on December 20, 2013 at 1:01 PM

.000005756 rate of disease. And it is not a direct link.
Probable
Likely
suggests

Great science there.

astonerii on December 20, 2013 at 11:12 AM

If I understand the passage you posted, they are looking at the influence of smoking on meningococcal meningitis, which is trivial and not one of the reasons for public smoking bans.

The benefit of public smoking bans is the very well documented 25%+ reduction in MI (heart attack)in the population where the ban takes place, which occurs almost immediately-within as little as 6 months. This effect has been shown many times in many locations by many different people and has very obvious biological mechanisms. Can you imagine how much money a drug company could make if they found a medicine that did this? Billions. Billions and billions of dollars.

The data for passive smoking causing lung cancer is very weak. The article cites 3400 cases per year in the US. That’s about the same as the number of people under 30 that will sign up for Obamacare on the website and pay premiums-a vanishingly small number. It’s so small there really isn’t a scientific way to prove whether second hand smoke causes lung cancer. You would need to study about a million people for 20-40 years with accurate information about their second hand smoke exposure. Not possible.

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Meningococcal meningitis is the disease Princeton was declaring an epidemic when they had 7 (seven) cases over 2 years. It has nothing to do with public smoking bans.

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Warmthing isn’t science, it’s religion, practiced by people who don’t understand science, or somehow think it’s a good thing to try to stop evolution.

Global warmthers also seem not to understand math, or the concept that the sun has a lot greater impact on the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere than cow flatulance.

Given that warmthers can’t seem to figure out if the earth is getting warmer or colder because of man and have now settled on climate change, do they seriously think that if there were no humban beings the earth’s temperature would not change?

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 9:14 AM

But it relies on people’s willingness to believe anything published in a “peer reviewed” journal to flourish.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-most-published-scientific-research-is-wrong-2013-10

For the record, I totally believe the link between 2nd hand smoke and asthma attacks, and have witnessed several young people die of asthma. But cold and exercise also induce asthma and you know this.

The rest is mostly a boat-load of crap. The 2′nd hand nicotine to cause a sudden risein blood pressure in a patient with preexisting CAD could be duplicated by getting their mixed drink order wrong.

Quoting articles is one thing. Critical reading of them should always be accompanied by a tendancy towards doubt. Maybe someday we’ll get science back on track.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 3:16 PM

They have done studies comparing counties side by side-one with a ban, one without, and in one case a county which had a ban, saw a 40% reduction in heart attacks, reversed the ban and the heart attack rate increased.

Ok, now show me how life expectancy in the US compares with the rest of the world.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Second hand smoke still makes your clothing and hair stink. I resent it.

thuja on December 20, 2013 at 9:39 AM

So do I. Both my parents smoked. I spent most of my young life with my head hanging out the car window, or bleaching the ceilings.

But some people hate the smell of broccoli. My mom hated the smell of frying fish (we had to throw away some really good catches).

You have no right to force your opinions on others. And most restaurants can easily deal with this. I will go to the ones that do. I can’t stand the smell.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM

The hospital discharge diagnosis of heart attack is based on bloodwork, CPK-MB and troponin, which are not elevated in anxiety attacks.

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 9:19 AM

You need to review how cigarette smoke induces an MI

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Talking points, If your a cardiologist, explain to me how your not controlling blood pressure with a sodium restricted diet anymore. what was that, 40 years?

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Circadian Rhythm. Yeah!!! PLEASE publish that. I can go on disability.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 3:26 PM

you’re

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Yeah, it would be terrible if people died of old age.

talkingpoints on December 20, 2013 at 8:46 AM

I’ve never met a person who really died from old age. Have you? Really?

I don’t see it listed as a cause of sudden death anywhere.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Oh, lastly, I was once told, smokers have a lower incidence of Crohn disease. Just try to find that on google. Bettcha it’s still true.

WryTrvllr on December 20, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2